Lootifer wrote:Again you are assuming that those who disagree with you think in the same way you do. Just because you dont care about recognition; it doesnt mean others dont hold it dear to their hearts.

as far as I'm concerned, you haven't really said anything yet. If you got somethin to say, say it. If all you can muster on the issue is things about me, fine okay, I hear you, but it means nothing for the issue.

If you want to go through it from the start, I'll make a thread about it.

Phatscotty wrote:The fiscal concern I have can be summed up with a question. Is now really the time to increase the roles of monetary benefits from the gov't (for whatever reason)?

This sounds a lot like "I got mine, so f*ck them".

Phatscotty wrote:The institution of marriage is getting pimped for dollars. Yes, it has already been getting pimped in the past, but the overall question here is, if you ask me, "should we gorilla pimp marriage"

This sounds a lot like "I got mine, so f*ck them".

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

Lootifer wrote:Again you are assuming that those who disagree with you think in the same way you do. Just because you dont care about recognition; it doesnt mean others dont hold it dear to their hearts.

as far as I'm concerned, you haven't really said anything yet. If you got somethin to say, say it. If all you can muster on the issue is things about me, fine okay, I hear you, but it means nothing for the issue.

If you want to go through it from the start, I'll make a thread about it.

I see some things haven't changed at all.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

Lootifer wrote:Again you are assuming that those who disagree with you think in the same way you do. Just because you dont care about recognition; it doesnt mean others dont hold it dear to their hearts.

as far as I'm concerned, you haven't really said anything yet. If you got somethin to say, say it. If all you can muster on the issue is things about me, fine okay, I hear you, but it means nothing for the issue.

If you want to go through it from the start, I'll make a thread about it.

Phatscotty wrote:The fiscal concern I have can be summed up with a question. Is now really the time to increase the roles of monetary benefits from the gov't (for whatever reason)? I understand the premise is "all other married people are getting those monetary benefits", but, perhaps that is a major reason (more and more and more gov't benefits) why we can't live within our means and must go into debt in the first place?

Getting married can decrease the tax obligation an individual has to his or her government. You don't support people getting to pay less in taxes? You'd rather people can't get married, so that the government gets more money?

Phatscotty wrote:The fiscal concern I have can be summed up with a question. Is now really the time to increase the roles of monetary benefits from the gov't (for whatever reason)? I understand the premise is "all other married people are getting those monetary benefits", but, perhaps that is a major reason (more and more and more gov't benefits) why we can't live within our means and must go into debt in the first place?

Getting married can decrease the tax obligation an individual has to his or her government. You don't support people getting to pay less in taxes? You'd rather people can't get married, so that the government gets more money?

Some pay less, some pay more, some stay the same. So I can't answer your question that runs with the incorrect premise that all marriage = less taxes. Not to mention there are 1,100 other areas in law and tax code that are on the plate here

I think the government would pay out a lot more money, so I can't answer your second question either.

Lootifer wrote:Again you are assuming that those who disagree with you think in the same way you do. Just because you dont care about recognition; it doesnt mean others dont hold it dear to their hearts.

as far as I'm concerned, you haven't really said anything yet. If you got somethin to say, say it. If all you can muster on the issue is things about me, fine okay, I hear you, but it means nothing for the issue.

If you want to go through it from the start, I'll make a thread about it.

I see some things haven't changed at all.

I am quite proud of myself for my reply to that post.

Really? what was the point of the pride?? That what others hold dear to their heart trumps what all other hold dear to their hearts and we should change definitions? And I'm not sure you are qualified to speak for what everyone else "thinks". I just noted that your post is all about what I think or what I feel, and I don't see what that has to do with anything.

I already congratulated yallz! So, just to be clear. Now there is marriage equality in NZ. Are there going to be any other changes not related to marriage? Or is it as simple as gays can marry, the end?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Whichever arguments are similar, I discard both--if one has been already refuted (which is why analogies are useful). If dissimilar, then I let the opposition explain. Daddy1gringo refused, so he's left with the reductio ad absurdum until he can muster a good argument against gay marriage.

What a joke. I clearly took up your challenge, made the substitution as you requested, showing clearly how the substitution didn't work. It's not my fault that you continued to hold your hand over your eyes and declare exactly the opposite of what was clearly there. The statements, with the substitution, made absolutely no sense. Bigots having a problem with people of different races marrying has nothing to do with trying to re-define the very nature of marriage.

I haven't followed any of your discussion with BBS. However, being a "bigot" does not at all necessarily relate to race. One can be a bigot against any type of group.

(Note: I am NOT calling you a bigot, just disagreeing with what appears to be your use of the term.)

Fair enough. The discussion concerned an article I posted on page 3 (March 31 at 3-something pm) I'd be interested to hear your input on both the article and the subsequent discussion between me and BBS.

The right answer to the wrong question is still the wrong answer to the real question.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Whichever arguments are similar, I discard both--if one has been already refuted (which is why analogies are useful). If dissimilar, then I let the opposition explain. Daddy1gringo refused, so he's left with the reductio ad absurdum until he can muster a good argument against gay marriage.

What a joke. I clearly took up your challenge, made the substitution as you requested, showing clearly how the substitution didn't work. It's not my fault that you continued to hold your hand over your eyes and declare exactly the opposite of what was clearly there. The statements, with the substitution, made absolutely no sense. Bigots having a problem with people of different races marrying has nothing to do with trying to re-define the very nature of marriage.

I haven't followed any of your discussion with BBS. However, being a "bigot" does not at all necessarily relate to race. One can be a bigot against any type of group.

(Note: I am NOT calling you a bigot, just disagreeing with what appears to be your use of the term.)

Fair enough. The discussion concerned an article I posted on page 3 (March 31 at 3-something pm) I'd be interested to hear your input on both the article and the subsequent discussion between me and BBS.

I probably can't contribute to that particular discussion very coherently, as I would only be reading half of it.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Whichever arguments are similar, I discard both--if one has been already refuted (which is why analogies are useful). If dissimilar, then I let the opposition explain. Daddy1gringo refused, so he's left with the reductio ad absurdum until he can muster a good argument against gay marriage.

What a joke. I clearly took up your challenge, made the substitution as you requested, showing clearly how the substitution didn't work. It's not my fault that you continued to hold your hand over your eyes and declare exactly the opposite of what was clearly there. The statements, with the substitution, made absolutely no sense. Bigots having a problem with people of different races marrying has nothing to do with trying to re-define the very nature of marriage.

I haven't followed any of your discussion with BBS. However, being a "bigot" does not at all necessarily relate to race. One can be a bigot against any type of group.

(Note: I am NOT calling you a bigot, just disagreeing with what appears to be your use of the term.)

Fair enough. The discussion concerned an article I posted on page 3 (March 31 at 3-something pm) I'd be interested to hear your input on both the article and the subsequent discussion between me and BBS.

I probably can't contribute to that particular discussion very coherently, as I would only be reading half of it.

OK, I've never "foe"ed anyone so I'm not sure how that works. Anyway, I'm not the one who made the comparison. Check out the article, if you will. BBS was the one who claimed that you could substitute "interracial" for "same sex" in the author's statements, and it would show his arguments to be bigoted. I took him up on the challenge, made the substitution, and I stand by that it showed exactly the opposite. In any event, the article, written by a gay man, is thought-provoking, and I think you would enjoy reading it.

The right answer to the wrong question is still the wrong answer to the real question.

Instead of "same-sex," insert "interracial" and tell me if his post is not at all bigoted.

Race and gender are not the same thing. They are separate things.

That argument is about as valid as "Instead of same sex, insert ""pedophile""......

Ask Sym about making comparisons and how that all works.

no thanks! I'm done with him, as he as already turned his Thomas Jefferson thread into a Phatscotty thread and the basic facts of the situation cannot even be allowed for discussion.

I understand why people try to make this analogy, but it doesn't work for one important reason. Even when there was a fuss in a few states about interracial marriage, it was still about marriage concerning one male and one female. Nobody was trying to redefine marriage based on gender, and interracial marriages have existed all over the world for thousands of years.

Marriage was not the issue, racism was, and it was a problem in many areas, not just marriage.

It's amazing to me some people who claim to be for "small government" don't find it odd to try to squeeze the government into our bedrooms.

For you to be consistent, Phatscotty, you would have to completely stop being against Marriage Equality. Instead, you should SOLELY arguing in favor of getting the government out of marriage entirely (tax breaks, legalities, etc...). I know you have put forward that position, but in order to be consistent, that would have to be your ONLY position, not this "against Marriage Equality" bullshit that goes entirely against your claims of being in favor of "small government".

?

Is your lack of a response a sign that you're no longer making the "I'm for small government" claim?

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

“I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph, and there is purpose and worth to each and every life.” These words, spoken by Ronald Reagan in 1991, are framed on the wall above my desk. As a gay man, I’ve adopted them as my own, as I’ve entered the national discussion on same-sex marriage.

I wholeheartedly support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but I am opposed to same-sex marriage. Because activists have made marriage, rather than civil unions, their goal, I am viewed by many as a self-loathing, traitorous gay. So be it. I prefer to think of myself as a reasoning, intellectually honest human being.

The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely.

Opposition to same-sex marriage is characterized in the media, at best, as clinging to “old-fashioned” religious beliefs and traditions, and at worst, as homophobia and hatred.

I’ve always been careful to avoid using religion or appeals to tradition as I’ve approached this topic. And with good reason: Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance. But reason and experience certainly have.

Learning from Experience

As a young man, I wasn’t strongly inclined toward marriage or fatherhood, because I knew only homosexual desire.

I first recognized my strong yearning for men at age eight, when my parents took me to see The Sound of Music. While others marveled at the splendor of the Swiss Alps displayed on the huge Cinerama screen, I marveled at the uniformed, blond-haired Rolfe, who was seventeen going on eighteen. That proclivity, once awakened, never faded.

During college and throughout my twenties, I had many close friends who were handsome, athletic, and intelligent, with terrific personalities. I longed to have an intimate relationship with any and all of them. However, I enjoyed something far greater, something which surpassed carnality in every way: philia (the love between true friends)—a love unappreciated by so many because eros is promoted in its stead.

I wouldn’t have traded the quality of my relationships with any of these guys for an opportunity to engage in sex. No regrets. In fact, I always felt like the luckiest man on the planet. Denial didn't diminish or impoverish my life. It made my life experience richer.

Philia love between men is far better, far stronger, and far more fulfilling than erotic love can ever be. But society now promotes the lowest form of love between men while sabotaging the higher forms. Gay culture continues to promote the sexualization of all (viewing one’s self and other males primarily as sexual beings), while proving itself nearly bankrupt when it comes to fostering any other aspect of male/male relationships.

When all my friends began to marry, I began to seriously consider marriage for the first time. The motive of avoiding social isolation may not have been the best, but it was the catalyst that changed the trajectory of my life. Even though I had to repress certain sexual desires, I found marriage to be extremely rewarding.

My future bride and I first met while singing in a youth choir. By the time I popped the question, we had become the very best of friends. “Soul mates” is the term we used to describe each other.

After a couple of years of diligently trying to conceive, doctors informed us we were infertile, so we sought to adopt. That became a long, arduous, heartbreaking process. We ultimately gave up. I had mixed emotions—disappointment tempered by relief.

Out of the blue, a couple of years after we resigned ourselves to childlessness, we were given the opportunity to adopt.

A great shock came the day after we brought our son home from the adoption agency. While driving home for lunch, I was suddenly overcome with such emotion that I had to pull the car off to the side of the road. Never in my life had I experienced such pure, distilled joy and sense of purpose. I kept repeating, “I’m a dad,” over and over again. Nothing else mattered. I knew exactly where I fit in within this huge universe. When we brought home his brother nearly two years later, I was prepared: I could not wait to take him up in my arms and declare our kinship and my unconditional love and irrevocable responsibility for him.

Neither religion nor tradition turned me into a dedicated father. It was something wonderful from within—a great strength that has only grown with time. A complete surprise of the human spirit. In this way and many others, marriage—my bond with the mother of my children—has made me a much better person, a person I had no idea I had the capacity to become.

Intellectual Honesty and Surprise Conclusions

Unfortunately, a few years later my marriage ended—a pain known too easily by too many. At this point, the divorce allowed me to explore my homosexuality for the first time in my life.

At first, I felt liberated. I dated some great guys, and was in a couple of long-term relationships. Over several years, intellectual honesty led me to some unexpected conclusions: (1) Creating a family with another man is not completely equal to creating a family with a woman, and (2) denying children parents of both genders at home is an objective evil. Kids need and yearn for both.

It took some doing, but after ten years of divorce, we began to pull our family back together. We have been under one roof for over two years now. Our kids are happier and better off in so many ways. My ex-wife, our kids, and I recently celebrated Thanksgiving and Christmas together and agreed these were the best holidays ever.

Because of my predilections, we deny our own sexual impulses. Has this led to depressing, claustrophobic repression? No. We enjoy each other’s company immensely. It has actually led to psychological health and a flourishing of our family. Did we do this for the sake of tradition? For the sake of religion? No. We did it because reason led us to resist selfish impulses and to seek the best for our children.

And wonderfully, she and I continue to regard each other as “soul mates” now, more than ever.

Over the last couple of years, I’ve found our decision to rebuild our family ratified time after time. One day as I turned to climb the stairs I saw my sixteen-year-old son walk past his mom as she sat reading in the living room. As he did, he paused and stooped down to kiss her and give her a hug, and then continued on. With two dads in the house, this little moment of warmth and tenderness would never have occurred. My varsity-track-and-football-playing son and I can give each other a bear hug or a pat on the back, but the kiss thing is never going to happen. To be fully formed, children need to be free to generously receive from and express affection to parents of both genders. Genderless marriages deny this fullness.

There are perhaps a hundred different things, small and large, that are negotiated between parents and kids every week. Moms and dads interact differently with their children. To give kids two moms or two dads is to withhold from them someone whom they desperately need and deserve in order to be whole and happy. It is to permanently etch “deprivation” on their hearts.

Rich Versus Diminished Lives

Sexuality is fluid for many, and much more complex than many want to acknowledge. Gay and straight activists alike pretend this isn’t true in order to fortify their positions. If they fail to maintain that mirage, fundraising for their organizations might dry up, as would the requests for television and radio interviews. Yet the “B” in the middle of “LGBT” acknowledges an important reality concerning our human sexuality.Follow us Here’s a very sad fact of life that never gets portrayed on Glee or Modern Family: I find that men I know who have left their wives as they’ve come out of the closet often lead diminished, and in some cases nearly bankrupt, lives—socially, familially, emotionally, and intellectually. They adjust their entire view of the world and their role within it in order to accommodate what has become the dominant aspect of their lives: their homosexuality. In doing so, they trade rich lives for one-dimensional lives. Yet this is what our post-modern world has taught us to do. I went along with it for a long while, but slowly turned back when I witnessed my life shrinking and not growing.

What Now?

In our day, prejudice against gays is just a very faint shadow of what it once was. But the abolition of prejudice against gays does not necessarily mean that same-sex marriage is inevitable or optimal. There are other avenues available, none of which demands immediate, sweeping, transformational legislation or court judgments.

We are in the middle of a fierce battle that is no longer about rights. It is about a single word, “marriage.”

Two men or two women together is, in truth, nothing like a man and a woman creating a life and a family together. Same-sex relationships are certainly very legitimate, rewarding pursuits, leading to happiness for many, but they are wholly different in experience and nature.

Gay and lesbian activists, and more importantly, the progressives urging them on, seek to redefine marriage in order to achieve an ideological agenda that ultimately seeks to undefine families as nothing more than one of an array of equally desirable “social units,” and thus open the door to the increase of government’s role in our lives.

And while same-sex marriage proponents suggest that the government should perhaps just stay out of their private lives, the fact is, now that children are being engineered for gay and lesbian couples, a process that involves multiple other adults who have potential legal custody claims on these children, the potential for government’s involvement in these same-sex marriage households is staggering.

Solomon only had to split the baby in two. In the future, judges may have to decide how to split children into three, four, or five equal pieces. In Florida, a judge recently ordered that the birth certificate of a child must show a total of three parents—a lesbian couple and a gay man (the sperm-providing hairdresser of one of the lesbian moms). Expect much more of this to come.

Statists see great value in slowly chipping away at the bedrock of American culture: faith and family life. The more that traditional families are weakened in our daily experience by our laws, the more that government is able to freely insert itself into our lives in an authoritarian way. And it will.

Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin, recently said, “I think you can have social stability without many intact families, but it’s going to be really expensive and it's going to look very ‘Huxley-Brave New World-ish.’ So [the intact family is] not only the optimal scenario … but it’s the cheapest. How often in life do you get the best and the cheapest in the same package?”

Marriage is not an elastic term. It is immutable. It offers the very best for children and society. We should not adulterate nor mutilate its definition, thereby denying its riches to current and future generations.

This article originally appeared in Public Discourse: Ethics, Law, and the Common Good, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, NJ. Thepublicdiscourse.com. Reprinted with permission.

Yeah, he's just another of those ignorant homophobic bigots.

I find him to be failing in logic, to be honest. He speaks as though the allowance of same-sex marriage would remove the likelihood (or even the possibility) of philial love. That doesn't make any sense to me, as I have good friends who are female, and my wife has at least one good male friend). I think he's arguing to cut off his note to spite his face. to be honest.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

I'm not sure he's saying that, Woodruff. I think his point about Eros vs Phileo is that our culture tends to elevate the formal while diminishing the latter, but I don't read anything in there that says marriage precludes any possible occurence of Phileo. C.S. Lewis explores the same ideas in his book <I>The Four Loves</I>, and he also argues that Phileo is a higher love than Eros. He was single for much of his life, but he apparently had enough romantic liaisons to have some room to speak from experience, plus whatever went on with him and Mrs. Moore. Actually, given what has been said about Moore, maybe Lewis' thoughts on Phileo make perfect sense.

macbone wrote:I'm not sure he's saying that, Woodruff. I think his point about Eros vs Phileo is that our culture tends to elevate the formal while diminishing the latter, but I don't read anything in there that says marriage precludes any possible occurence of Phileo.

Ok, yes I probably over-stated that, but his logic is still very poor. Otherwise, the idea of phileo love between those of the opposite sex would be rare (at least, he seems to be afraid that would become the case).

As well, I would suggest that our culture does NOT particularly elevate Eros love over Phileo love, but rather that the Phileo love is more underlying and just not as obvious but MORE PERVASIVE than Eros love.

In other words, Eros love is what is out there in front of everyone (thank you, advertising agencies, for instance), but Phileo love is actually far more common. It's not like those who would likely "marry" in the homosexual community don't already feel the Eros love, after all.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.